Texas

Does Texas require attorneys to disclose AI use in state court filings? No — there's no statewide court rule. But Texas has a unique wrinkle: the TRAIGA law (Texas Responsible AI Governance Act), signed June 2025, creates a statutory framework for AI use that touches legal practice indirectly. Add in influential federal court orders from judges like NDTX's Judge Starr, and Texas attorneys face a more complex AI landscape than the absence of a court rule might suggest.

For managing partners in Texas, the compliance picture isn't simple 'no rule, no problem.' TRAIGA creates statutory obligations. Federal court orders set expectations. Individual state court judges issue their own requirements. You need to navigate all three layers.

The TRAIGA Law and What It Means for Attorneys

The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), signed into law in June 2025, establishes a broad statutory framework for AI governance in Texas. While not specifically targeting attorney filings, TRAIGA creates requirements around AI transparency, accountability, and human oversight that apply across industries — including legal services. For law firms, TRAIGA's most relevant provisions involve documentation of AI systems used in professional services and accountability for AI-generated outputs. It's not a court rule, but it's law — and it applies to your firm's AI operations.

Why Texas Has No State Court AI Disclosure Rule

The Texas Supreme Court and the State Bar of Texas have not adopted a statewide rule requiring AI disclosure in court filings. This isn't because Texas is ignoring the issue — the State Bar's AI Task Force has been active, and the court system has published guidance on AI use. The approach has been to rely on existing Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly the duties of competence and candor, rather than creating AI-specific filing requirements. Texas tends to move cautiously on court rule changes, preferring legislative action or informal guidance over prescriptive rulemaking.

Federal Court Influence: The NDTX Standing Orders

Federal courts in Texas have been more aggressive, and their influence bleeds into state practice. Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued one of the nation's first mandatory AI certification orders, requiring attorneys to certify either that they didn't use AI or that a human verified all AI-generated content. This order became a national model and influenced how Texas state court judges think about AI. Other federal judges in the Southern District (Houston), Western District (San Antonio/Austin), and Eastern District (Tyler/Marshall) have followed with their own requirements. These federal orders shape attorney behavior even in state court practice.

Individual State Court Judge Orders

While no statewide rule exists, individual Texas state court judges have issued standing orders or verbal directives requiring AI disclosure in their courtrooms. These orders vary in scope and specificity — some require disclosure of any AI assistance, others focus on AI-generated legal research. Because Texas has over 3,000 state court judges across 254 counties, tracking individual standing orders is a significant compliance challenge. There's no centralized database of AI-related standing orders for Texas state courts, which means attorneys must check directly with each court.

Compliance Strategy for Texas Firms

Layer your approach. First, ensure TRAIGA compliance across your firm's AI operations — this is a statutory obligation independent of court rules. Second, maintain a running list of federal judge AI orders in every district where you practice. Third, check for individual state court standing orders before filing — call the clerk or check the judge's webpage. Fourth, build verification workflows that satisfy the strictest standard you'll encounter. If your associates verify citations and document AI use for NDTX filings, that same protocol works everywhere in Texas. Fifth, train everyone — partners, associates, paralegals — on the three-layer compliance model: statute (TRAIGA), federal court orders, and individual state court orders.

The Bottom Line: Texas has no statewide court AI disclosure rule, but TRAIGA creates statutory AI obligations, federal judges like NDTX's Judge Starr set influential precedents, and individual state judges issue their own orders — compliance requires navigating all three layers.